Survival Mode: Nancy Pelosi endorses Daniel Lipinski

As the Democrats move towards socialism, certain Democrats stand in the way. Daniel Lipinski, the longtime representative of Illinois 3rd District, is in an intense primary battle. Daniel Lipinski is a pro-life and a Democrat which is a heated factor in this primary. His opponent is Marie Newman, a staunchly pro-abortion candidate. She has received numerous endorsement from Democrats in Congress, among them are Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Luis Gutierrez (D-IL). Leftist are rallying around Newman. In a previous NOQ Report article this race was considered one of the most important because it was the first battleground in a possible intra-party civil war. Marie Newman is a strong candidate and not reliant on any social media platform. If it weren’t for big union support, Lipinski would be in serious trouble.

Enter Pelosi

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Thursday she supports Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., and his bid for re-election, even as other Democrats have said they oppose him because he opposes legal abortion.

“Yes, I do,” Pelosi told reporters at the end of her weekly press conference Thursday when asked if she supports him.

Lipinski’s position on abortion has drawn opposition from progressive and pro-abortion lawmakers such as Reps. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., and Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., both of whom have endorsed his primary challenger, Marie Newman. Lipinski has not been endorsed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Despite her own pro-choice stance, Pelosi does not have a litmus test on the issue when it comes to members in her own party. In an interview last year, Pelosi and the DCCC said there is room in the party for pro-choice Democrats like Lipinski.

My Take

This resembles a power move, but it’s not. In the past, we have seen instances with Republican leadership using power moves against more ideologically strong candidates, such as in the 2013 Virginia Gubernatorial Election. Instead, this is survival mode. As the Democrats move left, Nancy Pelosi is left with the dilemma of how to remain on top. The current Democratic makeup in Congress doesn’t have nearly enough interest in replacing her. New socialist types, on the other hand, they could want one of their own in that role.

But I think remaining the Democrat front-figure in the House is only part of the issue. Daniel Lipinski is a likable Democrat. Getting rid of likable JFK types for Fidel Castro types isn’t a winning strategy for them. Identity politics has lost Democrats 3 of the last 4 major election cycles. Pelosi stating that the Democrat cannot turn down pro-lifers in their party may be her acknowledging the reality of the state of the party. They aren’t winning, and being staunchly pro-abortion won’t get them there.

Simply put, abortion is not a good litmus test for Democrats. The strategy is killing the party in America’s heartland. Perhaps Pelosi realizes this. Or perhaps it’s all about her seat in power. You decide.

It has come to my attention that President Trump has re-nominated Chai Feldblum to her position as commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This news has brought me grave concern.

On behalf of the American people, it is up to you and the rest of the Senate to remedy this unfortunate situation.

As you are aware, the EEOC deals with cases of workplace discrimination; having the power to enforce federal laws, investigate discrimination complaints, regulate and pursue legal charges against private businesses, and influence public opinion. It is imperative that any federal agency entrusted with such powers be steered by the conscientious counsel of unbiased leadership.

A former college basketball coach once said, “Offense is not equal opportunity.” However, since her appointment by former President Obama in 2010, Ms. Feldblum has exploited her position at the EEOC to offensively further her own fanatical advocacy goals at the expense of religiously-oriented American citizens, the Bill of Rights be damned.

Religious liberty, inviolable and protected from governmental infringement by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, is richly ingrained in our country’s values, having been secured by the blood of our ancestors. In fact, religious liberty, often referred to by the Founders as freedom of conscience, was considered by early Americans to be so precious that, even in the midst of America’s fight for independence, conscience objections were considered sacrosanct.

Consider the words of America’s first President, George Washington, in a letter to Benedict Arnold during America’s Revolutionary War:

“While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious not to violate the conscience of others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men, and to Him only in this case are they answerable.”

For Chai Feldblum, however, religious freedom must be subjugated with the full force of the government’s ugly fist.

She is, in a word, tyrannical.

Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines tyranny as “a rigorous [strict] condition imposed by some outside agency or force,” as imposed by a tyrant.

A tyrant is defined as “one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power.”

Ms. Feldblum has made several deeply troubling statements that betray her tyrannical intentions, wholly at odds with America’s founding principles:

“I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win… Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner (emphasis mine).”

“I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if ‘pockets of resistance’ to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people (emphasis mine).”

Ms. Feldblum’s seditious statements are in dramatic contrast to what Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1774, in Emblematic Representations:

“The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation,to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection,rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought toenjoy (emphasis mine)”

In addition, Ms. Feldblum’s thesis on the proper role of government is unequivocally incompatible with the words spoken by President Thomas Jefferson during his first inaugural address, 1801:

“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”

Chai Feldblum’s offensive advocacy through the EEOC is so extreme and outside of Constitutional bounds that, in 2012, the usually divided Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously against Feldblum’s EEOC attempt to void the “Ministerial Exemption,” which allows leeway for religious organizations to carry out routine, religiously-related matters of hiring and terminating employees.

While Ms. Feldblum claims to represent the LGBTQ+ community, she speaks only for a small, yet loud portion of the demographic; one comprised almost entirely of radical LGBTQ+ activists.

In truth, Ms. Feldblum’s fanatical, extremist, ideologically-driven agenda only serves to marginalize a significant portion of sexual minorities, in addition to women and countless Americans of religious orthodoxy.

Ignoring the conservative, sexual minorities who disapprove of the forced subjugation of religious Americans, Ms. Feldblum propagates stereotypes of the various people she claims to represent, and actively encourages neighbors to go to war with neighbors.

Feldblum insists on a “zero-sum” game, where religious Americans and members of the LGBTQ+ community are incapable of living peaceably side-by-side. As the architect of former President Obama’s Transgender executive order, Feldblum further victimizes traumatized women and children, insisting they must tolerate an unsafe existence, as grown men are ushered into their locker rooms and bathrooms in the name of “progress.” Feldblum insists on subjugating religious, yet same-sex attracted business owners in the private market, drastically hindering their pursuit of happiness through economic independence. Feldblum insists that all LGBTQ+ Americans think as she does.

Ms. Feldblum is a tyrant; wholly unworthy of another five years at the helm of the EEOC.

Speaking on the sacredness of religious liberty in America, Samuel Adams stated, August 1, 1776:

“Driven from every other corner of the earth freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum.”

The responsibility, Senator Alexander, now rests with you and the Senate to protect religious liberty as vigorously and as confidently as our Founding Fathers.

If you fail to perform this duty, this great test of your legacy as one of the leaders of the free world, may the words of Samuel Adams haunt you for the remainder of your days:

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

Related

Video: The Racist roots of Liberty control – Who doesn’t like certain people getting rights?

In honour of #NationalWalkoutDay let’s look at those who really don’t like certain people getting rights – specifically the common sense human right of self-preservation.

This is NationalWalkoutDay [Who would have thought that kids would want to skip school?] With one of the most important human rights in the spotlight, it would be a good idea to examine the reasons why this has been suppressed in the past. To begin, consider Hillary Clinton’s statement smearing most of the country:

So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward, and his whole campaign, Make America Great Again, was looking backwards. “You don’t like black people getting rights, you don’t like women getting jobs, you don’t want to see that Indian-American succeeding more than you are, whatever your problem is, I’m going to solve it.”

So who really is opposed to the certain people getting their common sense human rights? The following video from Colion Noir details that Liberty(gun)control has it’s roots in racism:

Gun Control’s Racist History

Interestingly enough, the same people who claim to care about ‘the children’ but whole heartily support Planned Parenthood are the same folks who want to deprive the people of their basic human rights. Who would have thought that was the case?

Related

Rick Saccone or Blue Wave. That’s the lesson?

By this time Conor Lamb has not officially been declared the winner, but in all likelihood, unless Rick Saccone wins a supermarjority of the absentee ballots, most of which come from Lamb’s friendliest county, Rick Saccone will walk away from this one tail between the legs. However, the specific outcome of this race does not dwarf the fact that Saccone had no business pursuing a higher office. Earlier in this election cycle, I wrote a piece called Blue wave looking weak in Pennsylvania special election. I mistakenly made, based off the actions of the Democrats, that this race was Saccone’s for the grabbing. At the time polling showed Saccone winning and Democrats appeared to be consolidating their funds elsewhere. What I remain well-foresighted on was my critique of Rick Saccone and Conor Lamb as well. Saccone’s background served as little justification for a State Rep seeking a promotion.

Rick Saccone will in my mind comes away as the winner on March 13th. However, he is not nearly suitable for the job as he should be. He legislative record is one of recognizing days of the year as special for a person or group. He does not have a record of sponsoring serious conservative legislation. Though he does have a record of voting conservative, he isn’t a leader on the issues he is campaigning on. The GOP is right to break the bank for his campaign as they aren’t short on cash in this moment. Saccone isn’t a strong candidate in my opinion, but, with some bankroll, he is.

Blue Wave?

So the disastrous election day for Saccone isn’t terrible surprising, nor are we lack for a clear explanation. Connor Lamb, as I noted in the article, was a good candidate. He had experience he could leverage in order to convince voters to vote for him. A good military background and experience as a US Attorney out-qualified the placeholding State Representative. But Democrats are rushed to assume Rick Saccone’s shortcomings are a setback on the Trump administration. I believe that campaigning is a skill, and some people really suck at it: Mitt Romney. Conor Lamb is good while Saccone blew a double digit lead [insert Warriors or Falcons meme here] that Trump won the district with in the 2016 Election. Such a swing could indicate that leftism is on the rebound one year following Trumpism in power. But this would only be true if indeed Conor Lamb campaigned as a leftist. Alas, leftists should halt their celebration of a Blue Wave, for Conor Lamb ran more as a Dan Lipinski than a Marrie Newman.

The Lesson

While Democrats might be ever so inclined to believe that leftism has an appeal among the common folks, Conor Lamb ran as a complete moderate. Rick Saccone relied on tribalism, the premise of any Democrat being worse than any Republican. Democrats ought to learn that foregoing elitist leftist ideals will better serve their 2018 chances. But they won’t. We shall see just how well the Blue Wave fairs for all the leftist senators campaigning in states Trump won. Republicans are like to take this race as a wake-up call to defend that which they have spent years trying to gain. But every race is, in moderate or large degree, independent of up or down the ballots. Conor Lamb winning shows that Rick Saccone had no business running. Candidates matter is a lesson we should all learn. Rick Saccone was the regrettable choice for Republicans.